oauth_login

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral detail: provider restriction (Google OIDC only), the exact error signal (404 / internal code 108), and the required recovery sequence. It does not cover token lifetime, rate limits, or what a successful call yields, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the provider constraint, then the error/recovery path. The ordering is front-loaded on what the tool is before moving to edge cases. Minor cost is that the constraint and error sentences could be merged for density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter auth tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, provider scope, and the one non-obvious failure mode that would otherwise strand an agent. It omits what success returns (session/token), which is a modest gap given no output schema documents it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both params are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the same idToken must be reused in the associate_email retry, and by framing idToken as the Google OIDC credential the whole flow hinges on.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb pair (log in or sign up) and the exact credential resource (a Google ID token), then narrows scope with 'Google OIDC only — there is no Apple/GitHub branch.' That scoping helps separate it from generic auth siblings like auth_login, but it never names the sibling it should be preferred over, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit failure-path workflow: if the wallet has no associated email, expect 404 with internal code 108 and call associate_email with the same idToken before retrying. That is concrete when-to-do-what guidance. What it lacks is a positive statement of when to choose this over auth_login or managed_sign_in.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.